Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00914-5

SPECIAL FEATURE: ORIGINAL ARTICLE

5th 3R International Scientific Conference (5th 3RINCs 2019)

A review of construction and demolition waste management

in Southeast Asia
Ngoc Han Hoang1   · Tomonori Ishigaki1 · Rieko Kubota1 · Masato Yamada1 · Ken Kawamoto2

Received: 28 May 2019 / Accepted: 28 August 2019

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
This study conducted a review of a wide array of documents related to construction and demolition waste (CDW) manage-
ment in Southeast Asia (SEA). CDW definitions, current state of CDW generation and composition, CDW flow and institu-
tional arrangements for CDW management were assessed. CDW generation was estimated in SEA countries where data are
unavailable. The review results indicated the inadequacy of existing CDW management in almost all SEA nations, with a
dearth of proper data on the amount of CDW generated and proportions of CDW components. Insufficient legal documents
designed for CDW and unclear assignment of prime responsibilities for CDW management have also been observed. The
SEA’s high ratio of CDW generation to the construction industry’s value added implies a great waste burden that construction
activities there are causing compared to their contribution to the regional economy. This study suggested a need for more
holistic and aggressive methods of sustainable CDW management, namely: developing legalised systematic approaches to
CDW data collection and database establishment; enabling public private partnership models, which involve the private
sector in establishing recycling facilities and internalise informal actors in formal CDW management arrangement; applying
recycling-favourable policies such as green public procurement, along with disposal fee schemes.

Keywords  CDW composition · CDW generation · Institutional arrangement · Recycling

Introduction SEA countries’ total value added [5]. It is considered, how-

Southeast Asia (SEA) has experienced significant population
growth over the last ten years [1, 2]. By 2020, the regional
population has been estimated to reach 650 million, of which
more than 50% will be located in urban areas [1]. This trend
of urbanisation contributes significantly to the remarkable
increase in urban development and renovation activities,
resulting in steadily increasing generation of construction
and demolition waste (CDW) [3, 4]. CDW is reported to be
“the emerging waste stream(s)” in this area [1].
The construction industry plays a rising role in the SEA
economy. The industry contributed to approximately 5% of
* Ngoc Han Hoang
hoang.ngoc.han@nies.go.jp
1
National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16‑2 Onogawa,
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305‑8506, Japan
2
Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama
University, Saitama 338‑8570, Japan
ever, to be one of the main sources of energy and natural
resource consumption. About 40% of input materials of the
global economy are reportedly used for construction activi-
ties [6], making unrestrained disposal of CDW a severe
waste of finite natural capital [7]. In almost all SEA coun-
tries, the majority of CDW is directly disposed of at landfills
and dumpsites [8, 9]. Therefore, CDW recycling and reuse
are regarded as promising means of reducing the initial con-
sumption of natural resources and managing the amount of
land allocated for CDW dumping, whilst eliminating CDW
caused human health concerns and environmental pollution
[10, 11].
Since more and more attention has been paid to CDW-
related issues in developed countries and developing coun-
tries alike, several studies have been implemented to review
the current state of CDW management [e.g. 12, 13–15].
Nonetheless, there is a limited number of studies on CDW in
SEA so far. This study aims therefore to provide a regional
perspective on the updated state of CDW management in
SEA countries through conducting a review of publications

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

and government reports as well as policies related to CDW
control. This paper critically analyses CDW definition in
the legal systems of SEA nations, CDW composition and
generation along with institutional arrangements for CDW
management, and current handling practices, to identify
appropriate schemes for CDW management in this region.
This paper is divided into four main parts, including this
introduction. The remaining parts will provide the review
methodology followed by review results, before presenting
a discussion and a conclusion on the current state of CDW
management in SEA.
Research methodology
This study targeted two main sources of data including offi-
cial documents and journal papers. Priority was given to
legal documents, policies, official data and statistics pub-
lished in the form of reports or on the websites of relevant
governmental bodies. In terms of journal papers, multiple
scientific databases were utilised through systematic search-
ing tools including Web of Science, Scopus and Google
Scholar. In this part of the study, first priority was given
to journal papers published by highly regarded academic
publishers including ScienceDirect, Taylor and Fran-
cis, Springer, Emerald Insight, Wiley Online Library and
so on. Conference papers and research reports developed
as outcomes of international projects were included where
necessary to fill in gaps. Keywords for searching included
“Construction waste”, “Demolition waste”, “CDW”, “Gen-
eration”, “Composition”, “Management”, “Legislation”,
“Policy” and “Country name”, etc. for all eleven SEA coun-
tries on an individual basis. Data collected were compiled
to create figures on CDW generation and composition for
the purpose of visual comparison among the SEA countries.
CDW generation was estimated based upon quantity of
construction/demolition areas and a waste generation rate
(WGR) as widely adopted in previous studies [e.g. 16, 17,
18]:
W = A × WGR,
where W is the total amount of CDW generated, A is the
floor area of construction/demolition works or structures,
and WGR is the average CDW generated per floor area. A
WGR of 98.80 kg/m2 provided in the study by Mah and
Fujiwara [11] on CDW generation in Malaysia was applied.
Because WGRs are highly dependent on construction tech-
nologies and procedures [19], the selection of a WGR deter-
mined by a study conducted in SEA is to diminish influences
upon WGRs of construction technique variation, which is
often significant across different regions [20]. Among the
very restricted number of studies quantifying WGRs of
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
CDW through empirical investigations in SEA, Mah and
Fujiwara [11] achieved the highest number of sites surveyed.
Owing to the unavailability of data on areas of demo-
lition and civil engineering projects, only waste generated
from building construction works was estimated. Projection
of CDW generation was performed for the SEA countries
where official statistics on CDW amount are not available,
but data on construction floor areas are published by the
statistics office, including the Central Statistical Organiza-
tion of Myanmar (CSO) [21], National Statistical Office of
Thailand (NSO) [22], and General Statistics Office of Viet-
nam (GSO) [23]. Construction floor data are not provided
in Brunei, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Laos, and the
Philippines.
Current state of CDW management
Regulations, institutional arrangements
and strategies for CDW management
The development level varies among the eleven SEA
countries, namely Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indo-
nesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Timor-
Leste, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. According to the
World Bank income-based development scale, Singapore
and Brunei Darussalam are listed as high-income econo-
mies, Malaysia and Thailand are upper-middle-income
economies, and the rest belong to the lower-middle-income
group [24]. GDP per capita of SEA in 2014 ranged from
US$1,260.4 (Myanmar) to US$56,957.1 (Singapore) [25].
On average, the construction industry accounted for 5.2%
of total value added in SEA countries in the period between
2007 and 2016 [5]. Figure 1 shows the increasing trend of
construction value added in SEA.
Regardless of differences in development levels, all
SEA countries have national institutional and regulatory
systems set up for solid waste management (Table 1) [1,
8, 9, 26]. Few of them, though, have clearly identified or
assigned agencies to take primary responsibility in CDW
management. Since CDW is considered an environment-
related issue, ministries and/or departments of environ-
ment are involved in the CDW management systems in all
eleven countries. In Singapore and Vietnam, the Ministry
of National Development and the Ministry of Construction,
respectively, are assigned overall responsibility for CDW
treatment and control [27–29]. In Malaysia, whilst the Min-
istry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government is
the leading agency in solid waste management, the Ministry
of Works in particular participates in waste management
at construction sites [30, 31]. For the rest, it is not clear
whether authorities in charge of overall solid waste manage-
ment are also mainly responsible for management of CDW.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Fig. 1  Contribution of construc-
tion industry to total value
added in SEA. Source [5]
Share of construcon industry in
total value added (%)
Nevertheless, as an overlap and/or dearth of cooperation has
been witnessed in solid waste management systems in SEA
countries [8], it is predictable that CDW management has
been confronting the same issues.
Whilst regulations on waste management are well devel-
oped in SEA (except in Myanmar), designated policies on
CDW are rarely provided. In 2017, the Ministry of Con-
struction of Vietnam issued a circular on construction solid
waste management (Circular No. 08/2017/TT-BXD), which
appears to be the first CDW-designated legal document in
SEA. Given that legal documents are not likely to change
or be amended quickly, a remarkable amount of time might
pass before CDW is fully addressed in the SEA legal sys-
tems. Nevertheless, a movement towards a more sustainable
approach to waste management has been reported, promising
associated positive impacts on CDW management. National
strategies for waste management have been established in
Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Among these, in the
Vietnam strategy (National Strategy for General Manage-
ment of Solid Waste to 2025 with vision towards 2050),
90% of CDW is planned to be collected and 60% reused/
recycled in 2025 [33]. More importantly, following the
decentralisation of responsibilities, several SEA capitals
and major cities have developed their own strategies and
activities in accordance with national policies and plans.
For instance, the Waste Management Strategy and Action
Plan of Phnom Penh 2018–2035 sets targets of over 90%
and 85% for CDW collection and recycling, respectively, by
2023 [34]. Mandalay, the old capital of Myanmar, plans to
increase its recycling rate of industrial and special wastes
(including CDW) by 80% in their 2017–2030 Waste Man-
agement and Action Plan [35]. The Department of Envi-
ronment under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration,
14
12
Brunei
Cambodia
10
Timor Leste
Indonesia
8
Laos
6
Malaysia
Myanmar
4
Philippines
Singapore
2 Thailland
Vietnam
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year
Thailand, is making progress on its plan to establish more
CDW processing facilities and transfer stations [36]. The
Hanoi Department of Construction, a subordinate agency of
the Ministry of Construction of Vietnam, recently promoted
a project on utilising CDW mobile crushers as a substantial
move to accelerate the city’s CDW recycling rate [37]. In
2015, Dili, the capital of Timor-Leste, launched a project on
processing waste into energy, developing a Plasma Furnace
System [38] to address the rising amount of waste, including
CDW that is disposed of at the Tibar landfill [39].
CDW definition and composition
How CDW is defined directly influences the reported amount
of CDW generated as well as the recorded CDW reuse and
recycling rate [40, 41]. Given the lack of designated poli-
cies on CDW in SEA, CDW definitions are only provided
in legal documents of Malaysia [42] and Vietnam [28, 32,
43] (Table 2). Other than that, CDW is often addressed in
reports or guidelines of relevant ministries, as witnessed in
Cambodia [44, 45], Singapore [29, 46], and Thailand [36].
Indonesia categorises CDW as special waste alongside two
other waste categories, namely household waste and house-
hold-like waste [47]. CDW is listed in the Philippines’ Eco-
logical Solid Waste Management Act in 2000 [48]. However,
no further explanation was introduced in either Indonesia or
the Philippines. Despite having national regulations on waste
management, Brunei and Timor-Leste do not address CDW
in those documents. There is so far no specific law or policy
on waste management in general in Myanmar.
Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam included CDW com-
position in the CDW definitions published by their gov-
ernmental bodies [28, 36, 46] (Fig. 2). For the rest, CDW
13


13
Table 1  Authorities and main legal documents on CDW management in SEA
No. Country Primary authority in solid waste manage- Primary authority in CDW management Other main authorities involved Core legal documents
ment

1 Brunei Darussalam Ministry of Development (Dept. of Environ- – – Environmental Protection and Management
ment, Parks and Recreation, Public Works Order (2016); Hazardous Waste (Control of
Department) Export and Transit) Order (2013)
2 Cambodia Ministry of Environment – Ministry of Public Works and Transport Sub-Decree on Solid Waste Management
(1999); Sub-Decree 113 on Management of
Urban Garbage and Solid Waste (2015)
3 Indonesia Ministry of Environment – Ministry of Public Works Act No. 18 on Solid Waste Management
(2008); Govt Regulation No. 81 on House-
hold Waste and Household-like Waste
Management (2012)
4 Laos Ministry of Communications, Transport, – Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ- Environmental Protection Law (1999)
Post and Construction ment
5 Malaysia Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Ministry of Works Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ- Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Manage-
Local Government ment; Construction Industry Development ment Act 2007 (Act 672)
Board
6 Myanmar Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ- – Ministry of Industry Environmental Conservation Law 2012. No
mental Conservation direct regulations and policies on waste
management
7 Philippines Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources – Dept. of Interior Local Government; Dept. of Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of
(National Solid Waste Management Com- Science of Technology 2000 (Republic Act 9003)
mission)
8 Singapore Ministry of the Environment and Water Ministry of National Development (Building – Environmental Pollution Control Act (1999);
Resources (National Environment Agency, and Construction Authority) Environmental Public Health Act (2002)
Public Utilities Board, Pollution Control
Dept.)
9 Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ- – Ministry of Public Health (Dept. of Local Enhancement and Conservation of National
ment (Pollution Control Dept., Environ- Administration) Ministry of Interior (Pub- Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2535
mental Quality Promotion Dept., Office lic Health Dept.) (1992); Hazardous Substance Act B.E. 2546
of Natural Resources and Environmental (2003)
Policy and Planning)
10 Timor-Leste Ministry of Public Works – Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Envi- Decree-Law No. 2/2017 approving the Urban
ronment; Ministry of State Administration Solid Waste Management System
11 Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ- Ministry of Construction – Law on Environmental Protection No.
ment 55/2014/QH13; Law on Construction No.
50/2014/QH13; Decree No. 38/2015/ND-CP
on the management of waste and discarded
materials

Source [1, 8, 9, 26, 28–31, 79, 80]

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
 Table 2  Definition of CDW in legal documents of SEA countries
No. Country Year Definition Legal document/Source

1 Cambodia 2015 CDW is defined as “construction debris, excavated materials and road/bridge MOE’s Environmental Guidelines on Solid Waste Management in Kingdom of
construction debris, etc.” CDW is categorised as municipal solid waste. Cambodia; Sub-decree 113 on Management of Urban Garbage and Solid Waste
Article 23 and 46 of Sub-Decree 113 stipulates responsibilities of owners/
contractors for demolishing, repairing or constructing houses or buildings to
manage garbage and solid waste generated in their construction sites.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

2 Indonesia 2008 CDW is classified as special waste, one of three waste categories. Act No. 18 regarding waste management
3 Laos There is no official definition of CDW in Laos. However, Article 10 of Envi- Environmental Protection Law
ronmental Protection Law stipulates that individuals/organisations involved in
construction/repair activities need to minimise waste.
4 Malaysia 2007 “Construction solid waste” means any solid waste generated from any construc- Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act [Act 672] (2007)
tion or demolition activity, including improvement, preparatory, repair, or
alteration works.
5 Singapore 2002 Construction waste is listed as industrial waste: “Industrial waste means any Environmental Public Health Act (2002)
waste whether solid, liquid or gaseous produced in the course of or is the waste Guideline on Recycled Materials for Construction, 2008, Building and Construc-
product of any trade, business, manufacture or building construction, and tion Authority
includes toxic industrial waste and any dangerous substance”.
CDW is “a mixture of hardcore (concrete, masonry, bricks, tiles), reinforcement
bars, dry walls, wood, plastic, glass, scrap iron and other metals, etc”.
6 Thailand 2008 CDW is “composed of soil, non-reinforced and reinforced concretes, bricks, Study of the Guideline for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in
concrete blocks, lightweight concrete blocks, asphalts, and others”. Thailand, Pollution Control Department
7 Vietnam 2014, Decree No. 38: “Solid waste from construction activities (including renovation Decree No. 38/2015/ND-CP on the management of waste and discarded materi-
2015, and demolition of works, called as construction solid waste) must be classified als (Decree No. 38), Law on Construction No. 50/2014/QH13, Circular No.
2017 and managed as follows: a) soil, sludge from excavation, dredging topsoil, dig- 08/2017/TT-BXD on Construction Solid Waste Management (Circular 08)
ging the foundation piles […]; b) gravelly soil, solid waste from construction
materials (brick, tile, grout, concrete, adhesives materials overdue) […]; c)
recyclable solid waste such as glass, steel, wood, paper, plastics […].”
Law on Construction and Circular 08 stipulate CDW classification, collection,
etc., and responsibilities in CDW management.

Source [28, 29, 32, 36, 42–47, 81]

13
 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

100% tonnes of CDW per day [54]. The Vietnam Government does
90%
Wood not provide a specific amount of CDW generated. Instead,
Tile CDW was reported to account for 10–12% of daily munici-
80% Sand, soil, gravel pal solid waste generated, equalling 6000–7200 tonnes per
70%
Sand, soil
day in 2011 [55]. Moreover, no updated CDW amount has
Roofting
been provided in Vietnam during the last eight years. No
Plastics
60% official report on specific CDW generation has been avail-
Paper and others
Miscellaneous
able in the remainder of the SEA countries.
50%
Metal Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate the CDW generation amount
40%
Gypsum and the ratio of CDW generation to value added of the con-
Concrete, aggregate struction industry in SEA in 2014. Figures of other coun-
30%
Concrete tries outside SEA were also presented to make a visual
20% Ceramic comparison of CDW generation in SEA with the rest of the
Cement, plaster world. Apart from CDW generation quantity, which is an
10% Brick, rock, cement, soil
Brick, block
0%
Cambodia Malaysia Thailand Vietnam
Malaysia 9.49

Fig. 2  CDW composition in SEA. Source [11, 49, 51, 52] CDW com- Myanmar 0.04
position study in Cambodia was conducted in Phnom Penh only
Singapore 1.27

composition is discovered through academic studies or as Thailand 7.20

outcomes of international development projects. Studies on Vietnam 8.88

CDW composition were available in Cambodia [49], Timor-
China
Leste [50], and Malaysia [11]. Whilst the study in Malay- 1130

sia was carried out in a project across the country, that in Japan 75.40
Cambodia concentrated only on Phnom Penh. In general, the
USA
main CDW components reported in SEA countries include 534

concrete, brick, scrap metals, wood, and plastics. Soil has Germany 85.99
been recorded in CDW in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand,
Slovenia
and Vietnam, whilst Vietnam is the only SEA country docu- 0.24 Unit: million tonnes
menting sludge as a CDW component. However, it is worth
noting that despite being defined as CDW in Decree No. Fig. 3  CDW generation in 2014. Source [21–23]
38 [28], sludge was not reported in the national report on
the environment quality of Vietnam in 2016 [51]. Similarly,
despite soil being defined as CDW in the Guideline for Con- Malaysia 638
struction and Demolition Waste Management in Thailand,
Nitivattananon [52] did not report this component in the Myanmar 10

CDW composition determined in their studies. According Singapore 84

to the CDW definition, soil is excluded from CDW in Singa-
pore [46, 53]. No CDW composition studies have been con- Thailand 693

ducted so far in Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, or the Philippines. Vietnam 933

CDW generation China 1,547

Japan 281
Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam are the only three coun-
tries of SEA that have published statistics on amounts of USA 839

CDW generation. The National Environment Agency of Germany 540

Singapore discloses the country’s generated CDW annu-
ally. Accordingly, Singapore generated approximately 1.54 Slovenia 97 Unit: tonnes/million USD
million tonnes of CDW per annum since 2015 [53]. As
announced by the Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing Fig. 4  CDW generation per construction value added in 2014. Source
and Local Government, Malaysia generated about 26,000 [5, 27, 58]

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
absolute indicator to compare CDW management practices
across different economies, Tam and Lu [56] suggested ratio
indicators such as CDW amount per construction value as
an important benchmark to gauge the wastefulness of con-
struction industries. The amount of CDW generation was
estimated for Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam using the
above-mentioned method. Accordingly, Malaysia is the larg-
est CDW generator in SEA (9.49 million tonnes) [54], fol-
lowed by Vietnam (8.88 million tonnes) and Thailand (7.20
million tonnes), whilst Myanmar is the smallest (0.05 mil-
lion tonnes). The average CDW amount generated in SEA
is 5.37 million tonnes, which in our comparison is higher
only than Slovenia (0.24 million tonnes), the generator of
least CDW in the European Union in 2014 [57]. In terms
of CDW amount per construction industry’s value added,
Myanmar’s figure remains insignificant, whereas Vietnam
has a substantial rate of around 933 tonnes per million USD,
which is lower than the world’s largest CDW generator,
China (with 1547 tonnes/million USD), but well exceeds
the second and third most remarkable sources of CDW in
2014, the USA (839 tonnes/million USD) and Germany
(540 tonnes/million USD) [5, 58]. SEA generates around
472 tonnes of CDW per construction million USD on aver-
age, higher than Japan (294 tonnes/million USD), a more
advanced economy [5, 58]. A concrete reason has not yet
been provided to explain these differences [40], but several
assumptions can be made to explain the variation. Lower
housing prices in SEA compared with those in developed
nations can result in a lower turnover in the construction
industry, leading to a higher rate of waste per value added.
The variation can also be explained by the less advanced
and less sustainable techniques of building demolition and
construction in SEA, resulting in a higher quantity of materi-
als wasted. Notwithstanding these possible reasons, a high
ratio of CDW generated to construction value added in SEA
implies that the construction industry there is giving rise
to a great waste burden compared to its contribution to the
regional economy. More importantly, since the estimated
CDW amounts of Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam exclude
waste generated from demolition and civil engineering pro-
jects, the actual ratio, or in other words, the waste burden,
is even more alarming.
CDW flow
Being more advanced than other SEA nations, Singapore has
a relatively comprehensive system to manage waste in gen-
eral and CDW in particular. Recyclables in CDW are sorted
and retrieved before the remains are incinerated in waste-to-
energy (WTE) plants. In the last five years, the country has
reported a 99% recycling rate of CDW, which however does
not include soil and sludge [53]. A system of licensed waste
collectors has been established to handle waste, including
CDW, generated by commercial and industrial premises.
A code of practice for licensed waste collectors has been
provided accordingly. Apart from that, the National Envi-
ronment Agency of Singapore (NEA) allows waste-related
organisations to provide and update their information to an
online directory of collectors, traders and recycling facilities,
published on NEA’s website. This directory, nonetheless, is
not exhaustive and the competency/licence of listed facilities
is not guaranteed.
In Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Viet-
nam, CDW flow is driven principally by economic incen-
tives and under the limited supervision of governments [10,
11, 49, 59, 60]. Accordingly, CDW components are divided
into two main groups: valuable and non-valuable waste.
Valuable CDW, as identified by the market, is reused and
recycled according to its function. It often includes scrap
metals, wood, concrete, and brick. Collecting and treatment
of those materials is usually implemented by the private sec-
tor, which consists of scrap dealers, craft villages, etc. on a
contract basis. Brick and concrete are often used for back-
filling at other construction sites. Valuable CDW collection
also involves such informal actors as scavengers at diverse
points of waste flow including construction and demolition
sites, open dumping sites, and landfills [61]. Even though
these activities indicate initial and positive reuse and recy-
cling application, they are considered an ineffective system
[62]. Non-valuable CDW, on the other hand, is subject to
disposal. All five countries require CDW generators/owners
to transport and dump CDW at designated landfills or dump-
sites as stipulated in legal documents. Nevertheless, due to
poor law enforcement along with shortages of landfills and
dumpsites, non-valuable CDW components often end up in
illegal dumping areas, which are places that are not legally
designated for CDW disposal [27, 52]. In 2015, 854 illegal
dumpsites were recorded along the streets in Malaysia [63].
In Vietnam, CDW has been reportedly dumped illegally on
vacant land, kerbside, and in water bodies [51].
There is no research or data available on CDW flows in
Brunei, Timor-Leste, Laos, Myanmar, or the Philippines.
Discussion
Main findings
Whilst legal systems for waste management have been
developed in SEA countries, relatively limited attention has
been paid to CDW. Although the concept of CDW manage-
ment has been touched upon in several SEA nations’ legal
instruments, regulations or policies are barely established
to stipulate either CDW-specific management approaches
and systems or oversight of CDW handling. Instead, CDW
is often considered part of municipal solid waste (MSW)
13

and follows MSW management systems. Given the remark-
able differences between MSW and CDW [7], it is essential
that SEA countries become aware of these differences and
associated management options to develop a proper and sus-
tainable CDW management strategy.
Almost all of the SEA countries do not have periodic
statistics on the amount of CDW generated or the propor-
tions of CDW components, indicating the lack of a proper
scheme for CDW database registration, development, and
management. Several movements have been observed in
SEA to address this issue. For instance, Cambodia consid-
ers improvement of its data collection as one of the core
goals in its waste management strategy in Phnom Penh [34].
Likewise, the Ministry of Construction of Vietnam issued
Circular 08 stipulating a reporting scheme for CDW gen-
eration and management, in which both central and local
government bodies as well as construction- and demolition-
related enterprises are required to be involved [32]. Similar
efforts have not been noted in other SEA countries.
The reported and estimated absolute amounts of CDW
generated in SEA appear low compared to the main CDW
generators worldwide in 2014, namely China, the USA, and
Germany. Nevertheless, in terms of the CDW to construction
industry value ratio, the average figure of SEA is only less
significant than that of China whilst outnumbering that of
other advanced economies. It is worth mentioning that the
projected CDW amounts of Myanmar, Thailand, and Viet-
nam have not yet included waste generated from demolition
and civil engineering activities due to an insufficiency of
data required for CDW estimation. Consequently, the actual
CDW amount and CDW to construction value ratio of SEA
are likely to be much more substantial. This finding confirms
CDW as an urgent waste issue that SEA is confronting. More
importantly, the estimated CDW amounts along with the
data on CDW composition could aid CDW managers and
policy makers in identifying CDW components that deserve
top priority in future CDW management strategies, and
roughly evaluating the potential for CDW recycling in SEA.
Except for Singapore, CDW reuse and recycling is inad-
equate in the SEA region. This contributes to a high amount
of CDW in landfills and dumpsites, leading to an inevitable
overload of these areas and worsening shortages of land
allocated for CDW dumping [1, 12, 64]. This signifies the
unsustainability and unavoidable breakdown of the current
CDW handling system, in which CDW recycling is merely
profit driven and implemented by private and informal actors
in an unsystematic manner.
Policy implications
This study suggests that more aggressive methods are needed
to tackle the gap in CDW-related data in SEA. Developing a
CDW database including CDW generation and composition
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
data is an essential prerequisite for the establishment of an
adequate CDW management system [16, 19]. As Wu, Duan
[4] explained, a CDW database will contribute to better
monitoring and a proper projection of future CDW genera-
tion, which in turn can facilitate the planning of the number
and scale of CDW treatment facilities, including recycling
factories and landfills. Therefore, it is of great importance
that efforts be made in developing a legalised systematic
approach to data collection and database establishment in
SEA countries.
Current unsustainable CDW handing practices revealed in
this study raise a need for a more comprehensive approach or
model for CDW management that involves both public and
private sectors in these countries. Public–private partner-
ship (PPP), which assures the commercial feasibility of the
private sector while fulfilling the public sector’s goals and
responsibilities, has been proven as an appropriate frame-
work for solid waste management in several countries, such
as China, Bhutan and Mexico [65, 66], and for CDW man-
agement in Ireland [67]. Establishment of CDW recycling
facilities, which require upfront capital investment, makes it
a must to involve the private sector. Given the strong depend-
ency on informal sectors for current CDW handling practices
in SEA, it is essential that those actors are integrated into the
official CDW management system. This, as Wilson and Velis
[68] argued, is an important form of PPP. Educating and
organising scavengers, waste pickers, and informal recyclers
into small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and cooperatives
is a powerful approach that allows significant increases in
such informal actors’ incomes, legitimising their activities
and avoiding middlemen [69, 70].
The current insufficient rate of CDW recycling suggests
a demand for a recycling-favourable environment that can
be generated through a combination of supporting regula-
tory instruments and economic incentives [71]. Examples
of regulatory tools include the Construction Material Recy-
cling Law enacted in Japan in 2000 [72], which reportedly
contributed to an increase of nearly 33% of the CDW recy-
cling rate in Japan during the period of 1996–2008 [41].
The law made it obligatory for concrete, iron, wood, and
asphalt concrete to be recycled, thereby forcing construction
and demolition contractors to actively implement recycling
methods while raising their awareness of recycling [73]. Tar-
geting the demand for recycled CDW products, the French
government incorporated green public procurement into
its Energy Transition for Green Growth Act, promulgated
in 2015 [74], in which reused and recycled CDW products
mandatorily account for 50% road construction projects’
input materials. Green public procurement, as Bougrain [75]
stated, plays a leading role in launching markets for CDW
recycled products through giving creditable signals to con-
sumers. Market-based instruments or economic incentives,
on the other hand, consist of preferential taxation policies
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
and land allocation, etc. [66, 76]. For instance, disposal fee
schemes have been applied worldwide such as a landfill tax
in New Zealand [41], a natural aggregate extraction tax in
Europe [71], and the Construction Waste Disposal Charg-
ing Scheme implemented in Hong Kong in 2005 [77]. Such
policies on disposal fees, nonetheless, need to be evaluated
with great caution before their implementation because they
could worsen the state of illegal dumping that is already
severe in developing countries [78].
Implications for future research
It should be noted that this study applied a single WGR for
all SEA countries whose CDW amounts were projected,
so the estimation might contain a certain level of uncer-
tainty. Future studies that determine WGRs through empiri-
cal investigations in each SEA nation are recommended to
enhance the accuracy of CDW generation rate determina-
tion. It is also suggested that further studies be undertaken
to identify obstacles and local particularities hindering SEA
countries from following good practices of CDW manage-
ment, to explain the current unsustainable management
revealed in this study.
Conclusion
Given the remarkable growth of the construction industry,
CDW has become a major issue that SEA countries must
now confront more seriously. This study contributes to a
better understanding of the current situation of CDW man-
agement in SEA by scrutinising CDW definition, composi-
tion, and institutional arrangements. It has also shed light
on current CDW handling practices and provided estimates
on CDW generation amounts and the ratio of CDW gener-
ated to the construction industry’s contribution to the SEA
economy. By comparing these figures from SEA with other
countries outside this region, this study emphasises the
severity of the CDW burden and, more importantly, raises
the alarm to policy makers about the current unsustainable
management of CDW in SEA. The observed absence of a
clear CDW definition and composition, as well as respon-
sibilities for CDW management in the majority of SEA
countries indicates that policy makers should put concerted
efforts into developing designated regulations and systems
for CDW. The insight into current CDW handling practices,
which are disposal prone with limited recycling activities
undertaken mainly by informal actors, is expected to assist
CDW management bodies in developing more CDW recy-
cling-friendly plans or mechanisms that involve both public
and private sectors.
Acknowledgements  This research was supported by the project of
Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)—Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) on Science and Technology Research Part-
nership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS) (No. JPMJSA1701).
References
1. Jain A (2017) Summary report: waste management in ASEAN
countries. United Nations Environment Programme, Thailand
2. Othman SN et al (2013) Review on life cycle assessment of inte-
grated solid waste management in some Asian countries. J Clean
Prod 41:251–262. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2012.09.043
3. OECD (2018) Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and
India 2018: Fostering Growth Through Digitalisation. OECD,
Paris
4. Wu H et al (2016) Demolition waste generation and recycling
potentials in a rapidly developing flagship megacity of South
China: Prospective scenarios and implications. Constr Build
Mater 113:1007–1016. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​
t.2016.03.130
5. UNSD (2018) Value Added by Economic Activity National
Accounts Section. https​://unsta​ts.un.org/unsd/snaam​a/Basic​.
Accessed 14 Apr 2019
6. Asif M et al (2007) Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwell-
ing home in Scotland. Build Environ 42(3):1391–1394. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.build​env.2005.11.023
7. Agamuthu P (2008) Challenges in sustainable management of
construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag Res 26:491–
492. https​://doi.org/10.1177/07342​42X08​10009​6
8. Borongan G, Okumura S (2010) Municipal waste management
report: status-quo and issues in Southeast and East Asian coun-
tries. AIT/UNEP, Japan
9. Manowong E, Brockmann C (2010) Construction waste manage-
ment in newly industrialized countries. In: W107-Special Track
18th CIB World Building Congress May 2010 Salford, United
Kingdom
10. Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH (2009) Estimation of construc-
tion waste generation and management in Thailand. Waste Manag
29(2):731–738. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2008.07.004
11. Mah CM et al (2016) Construction and demolition waste genera-
tion rates for high-rise buildings in Malaysia. Waste Manag Res
34(12):1224–1230
12. Esa MR et al (2017) Developing strategies for managing construc-
tion and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of
circular economy. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 19(3):1144–1154
13. Kelly M, Dowd D (2017) A review of construction waste manage-
ment practices on selected case studies in Ireland. Proc Inst Civil
Eng Waste Resour Manag 170(2):78–84. https​://doi.org/10.1680/
jwarm​.17.00007​
14. Ponnada MR, Deepa Kameswari P (2015) Construction and
demolition waste management—a review. Int J Adv Sci Technol
84:19–46. https​://doi.org/10.14257​/ijast​.2015.84.03
15. Yuan H, Shen L (2011) Trend of the research on construction
and demolition waste management. Waste Manag 31(4):670–679.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2010.10.030
16. Martínez Lage I et al (2010) Estimation of the annual production
and composition of C&D Debris in Galicia (Spain). Waste Manag
30(4):636–645. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2009.11.016
17. Cochran K et al (2007) Estimation of regional building-related
C&D debris generation and composition: case study for Florida,
US. Waste Manag 27(7):921–931. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasma​n.2006.03.023
18. Cochran KM, Townsend TG (2010) Estimating construc-
tion and demolition debris generation using a materials flow
13

analysis approach. Waste Manag 30(11):2247–2254. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2010.04.008
19. Wu Z et al (2014) Quantifying construction and demolition
waste: an analytical review. Waste Manag 34(9):1683–1692.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2014.05.010
20. Lu W et al (2011) An empirical investigation of construction
and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city, South
China. Waste Manag 31(4):680–687
21. CSO (2016) Myanmar statistical yearbook 2016. Ministry of
Planning and Finance, Myanmar
22. NSO (2015) The 2014 construction area. Ministry of Informa-
tion and Communication Technology, Thailand
23. GSO (2019) Statistics: Investment and Construction. www.gso.
gov.vn/defau​lt_en.aspx?tabid​=776. Accessed 14 Feb 2019
24. World Bank (2019) World Bank country and Lending Groups.
https ​ : //datah ​ e lpde ​ s k.world ​ b ank.org/knowl ​ e dgeb ​ a se/artic​
les/90651​9-world​-bank-count​r y-and-lendi​ng-group​s. Accessed
28 Mar 2019
25. World Bank (2019) GDP per capita (current US$). https​://data.
world ​ b ank.org/indic ​ a tor/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locat ​ i ons=Z4-
8S-Z7. Accessed 28 Mar 2019
26. Tan JS-E (2004) State of waste management in South East Asia.
UNEP, Japan
27. Nguyen T et al (2018) Current status of construction and demoli-
tion waste management in Vietnam: challenges and opportunities.
Int J Geomate 15(52):23–29
28. Government of Vietnam (2015) Decree No. 38/2015/ND-CP on
the management of waste and discarded materials, Vietnam
29. Singapore Government (2002) Environmental Public Health Act,
Singapore
30. Wahi N et al (2016) Critical review on construction waste control
practices: legislative and waste management perspective. Proce-
dia Soc Behav Sci 224:276–283. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr​
o.2016.05.460
31. Ikau R et al (2016) Factors influencing waste generation in the
construction industry in Malaysia. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
234:11–18. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr​o.2016.10.213
32. MOC (2009) Circular No. 08/2017/TT-BXD on Construction
Solid Waste Management 2017, Vietnam
33. Government of Vietnam, Decision No. 2149/QD-TTg approving
National Strategy of Integrated Solid Waste Management up to
2025, vision towards 2050, Vietnam
34. PPCA (2018) Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan of
Phnom Penh 2018-2035. Phnom Penh Capital Administration
(PPCA), Kingdom of Cambodia, Cambodia
35. MCDC (2017) Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan for
Mandalay City (2017–2030), M.C.D.C. MCDC, Mandalay
36. Pollution Control Department (2018) Study of the guideline for
construction and demolition waste management in Thailand. Min-
istry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand, Thailand
37. Vu L (2017) Turning Construction and Demolition Waste into
Construction Materials: Solution for Urban Development. https​
://hanoi​moi.com.vn/Tin-tuc/Kinh-te/86837​8/bien-phe-thai-thanh​
-vat-lieu-xay-dung-giai-phap-kha-thi-cho-phat-trien ​ - do-thi.
Accessed 1 May 2019
38. Pereira A.g. (2015) Timor-Leste makes a major upgrade to Solid
Waste Management with the launch of the “Processing Waste
into Energy” project in Díli. Sixth Constitutional Government:
Timor-Leste
39. Woodruff A (2014) Solid Waste Management in the Pacific:
Timor-Leste Country Snapshot. Asian Development Bank
40. Deloitte (2017) Resource Efficient Use of Mixed Wastes: Improv-
ing management of construction and demolition waste—Final
Report. Prepared for the European Commission
41. Akhtar A, Sarmah AK (2018) Construction and demolition waste
generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: a global
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
perspective. J Clean Prod 186:262–281. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclep​ro.2018.03.085
42. Government of Malaysia (2007) Solid Waste and Public Cleansing
Management Act 2007, Malaysia
43. Government of Vietnam (2014) Law on Construction No.
50/2014/QH13, Vietnam
44. Ministry of Environment of Cambodia and Cambodian (2006)
Education and waste management organization, environmental
guidelines on solid waste management in Kingdom of Cambodia.
European Union (Asia Pro Eco Programme), Cambodia
45. Royal Government of Cambodia (2015) Sub-decree 113 on Man-
agement of Urban Garbage and Solid Waste, Cambodia
46. Building and Construction Authority of Singapore (2008) Sus-
tainable Construction: a guide on the use of recycled materials.
Building and Construction Authority of Singapore, Singapore
47. Government of Indonesia (2008) Act No. 18 on Solid Waste Man-
agement, Indonesia
48. Government of Philippines (2000) Ecological Solid Waste Man-
agement Act of 2000, Philippines
49. Singh RK et al (2018) State of waste management in Phnom
Penh, Cambodia. United Nations for Environment Programme,
Cambodia
50. Carvalho D.d.A.d (2013) Country Analysis Paper: The Initial
Application if 3R Principles in Timor-Leste Solid Waste Man-
agement. Secretary State for Environment
51. MONRE (2017) National State of Environment Report 2016. In:
Kim M (ed) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of
Vietnam, Hanoi
52. Nitivattananon V (2019) Opportunities and challenges of con-
struction and demolition waste utilization: case of concrete waste
in Bangkok Metropolitan region, Thailand, in 2019. International
symposium on construction and demolition waste management,
Tokyo
53. National Environment Agency of Singapore (2017) Waste sta-
tistics and overall recycling. National Environment Agency,
Singapore
54. Zulzaha FF (2014) New plan to manage solid waste systematically.
https​://www.thest​ar.com.my/news/commu​nity/2014/08/21/new-
plan-to-manag​e-solid​-waste​-syste​matic​ally/. Accessed 18 Oct
2018
55. MONRE (2012) State of Environment Report 2011, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam, Editor, Hanoi
56. Tam V, Lu W (2016) Construction waste management profiles,
practices, and performance: a cross-jurisdictional analysis in four
countries. Sustainability 8(2):190. https​://doi.org/10.3390/su802​
0190
57. Eurostat (2019) Generation of Waste. http://appss​o.euros​t at.
ec.europ ​ a .eu/nui/show.do?datas ​ e t=env_wasge ​ n &lang=en.
Accessed 14 Feb 2019
58. Menegaki M, Damigos D (2018) A review on current situation
and challenges of construction and demolition waste management.
Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 13:8–15. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
cogsc​.2018.02.010
59. Nugroho A et al (2013) Measurement of the construction waste
volume based on digital images. Int J Civil Environ Eng IJCEE-
IJENS. 13(2):35–41
60. Lockrey S et al (2016) Recycling the construction and demoli-
tion waste in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges in practice. J
Clean Prod 133:757–766
61. Seng B et al (2011) Municipal solid waste management in Phnom
Penh, capital city of Cambodia. Waste Manag Res 29(5):491–500
62. Esin T, Cosgun N (2005) Ecological analysis of reusability and
recyclability of modified building materials and components at
use phase of residential buildings in Istanbul. UIA ISTANBUL
XXII World Congress of Architecture-Cities: Grand Bazaar of
Architectures, Istanbul
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
63. Mah CM et al (2018) Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost-
ing toward eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malay-
sia. J Clean Prod 172:3415–3427. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​
ro.2017.11.200
64. Alwi S et al. (2002) Waste in the Indonesian construction projects.
In: The 1st international conference on creating a sustainable con-
struction industry in developing countries
65. Bertrab Av et al (2008) Public-private partnerships as a means to
consolidate integrated solid waste management initiatives in tour-
ism destinations: the case of the Mexican, Caribbean. Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), GmbH,
Mexico
66. Huang J et al. (2018) Creating an Enabling Environment for Pub-
lic–Private Partnerships in Waste-to-Energy Projects. In: ADB
Sustainable Development Working Paper Series. Asian Develop-
ment Bank, Philippines
67. Duran X et al (2006) A model for assessing the economic via-
bility of construction and demolition waste recycling—the case
of Ireland. Resour Conserv Recycl 46(3):302–320. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2005.08.003
68. Wilson DC et al (2006) Role of informal sector recycling in waste
management in developing countries. Habitat Int 30(4):797–808.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.habit​atint​.2005.09.005
69. Medina M (2000) Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin Amer-
ica. Resour Conserv Recycl 31(1):51–69. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/
S0921​-3449(00)00071​-9
70. Haan H et al (1998) Municipal waste management: involving
micro-and-small enterprises. Guidelines for Municipal Managers.
Italy International Training Centre of the ILO, SKAT, WASTE,
Turin
71. Gálvez-Martos J-L et al (2018) Construction and demolition waste
best management practice in Europe. Resour Conserv Recycl
136:166–178. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2018.04.016
72. Ministry of Environment of Japan (MoE) (2019) Laws: Waste &
Recycling Law. https:​ //www.env.go.jp/en/laws/recycl​ e/. Accessed
2 July 2019
73. Nakajima S, Futaki M (2002) National R&D project to promote
recycle and reuse of timber constructions in Japan–the second
year’s results. In: CIB/TG39 Deconstruction Meeting. Karlsruhe,
Germany. CDROM
74. Doris Nicklaus, Kochert T (2015) Country profile —France: 2015
review of material resource efficiency policies in Europe—France.
European Environment Agency
75. Bougrain F (2017) Impact of Green Public procurement on the
market of recycled concrete. In: HISER International Conference,
The Netherlands
76. Chaerul M et al (2007) Municipal solid waste management in
Indonesia: status and the strategic actions. J Faculty Environ Sci
Technol 12(1):41–49
77. Hao JL et  al (2008) The effectiveness of Hong Kong’s con-
struction waste disposal charging scheme. Waste Manag Res
26(6):553–558. https​://doi.org/10.1177/07342​42X07​08534​5
78. Yuan H (2017) Barriers and countermeasures for manag-
ing construction and demolition waste: a case of Shenzhen in
China. J Clean Prod 157:84–93. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​
ro.2017.04.137
79. Royal Government of Cambodia (1999) Sub-Decree on Solid
Waste Management, Cambodia
80. Ministry of Energy, M.a.I.o.B.D. (2018) Brunei Law. http://www.
memi.gov.bn/SiteP​ages/Brune​i%20Law​.aspx. Accessed 24 July
2019
81. Government of Lao PDR (1999) Environmental Protection Law,
Laos
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13